nothing about the ruling says that. the ruling itself just says they affirm a lower court ruling being appealed so it is not clear exactly what they are ruling

nothing about the ruling says that. the ruling itself just says they affirm a lower court ruling being appealed so it is not clear exactly what they are ruling on. the key thing here is that this was a lawsuit by some guy against the police alleging damages from deprivation of rights (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1983 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1983) that is a very different situation from the police charging him with a crime for making recordings. basically just more stupid ill-informed sensationalist journalism.